Originally posted by Eon Blue
H1 has a horrible debating style. He adheres to a no limits fallacy and doesn’t argue in character.For example, I could state that Hela easily pierces Ares since he lacked remarkable reaction time against WW. Hela could easily project her blades behind him, impaling and bisecting him.
He reacted just fine to a sword stab. And Hela's blades have less reaction time from a distance.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Before we move on, do debates on this forum go by how a character is shown to act or what is potentially possible with their power set?
Most here go by potentially possible.
For me it goes by both to an extent based off the totality of the circumstances. We let common sense be our guide and disregard any CIS.
Also, just because a character wasn't put in a unique circumstance in a movie doesn't mean that if they were put in that situation in a forum that they wouldn't perform certain actions.
For instance, if Hela throws blades at Ares, then Ares is going to use TK, wind, etc to deflect them or send them back at her. He's not just going to sit there and do nothing.
Ares will use lightning (as he did against the God's thousands of years ago as he did against WW).
But if you like then we can argue who would win if we controlled the characters and possess all their skill and abilities.
And we can argue who would win if they fought in character (but doesn't suffer under CIS)
Originally posted by h1a8
Most here go by potentially possible.For me it goes by both to an extent based off the totality of the circumstances. We let common sense be our guide and disregard any CIS.
Also, just because a character wasn't put in a unique circumstance in a movie doesn't mean that if they were put in that situation in a forum that they wouldn't perform certain actions.
For instance, if Hela throws blades at Ares, then Ares is going to use TK, wind, etc to deflect them or send them back at her. He's not just going to sit there and do nothing.
Ares will use lightning (as he did against the God's thousands of years ago as he did against WW).
But if you like then we can argue who would win if we controlled the characters and possess all their skill and abilities.
And we can argue who would win if they fought in character (but doesn't suffer under CIS)
Wrong, we argue in-character. only you try and go by power-set.
If I'm wrong, feel free to post examples of "most" other people arguing powerset.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, we argue in-character. only you try and go by power-set.If I'm wrong, feel free to post examples of "most" other people arguing powerset.
Your first sentence is a false statement. The word "we" makes it false. There are at least several argued potential, including Nibedicus.
To prove you wrong, I just need to show 1 person doing it (not most).
P. S. I stated that we argue in character. But that wasn't your original question.
Originally posted by h1a8
Your first sentence is a false statement. The word "we" makes it false. There are at least several argued potential, including Nibedicus.To prove you wrong, I just need to show 1 person doing it (not most).
P. S. I stated that we argue in character. But that wasn't your original question.
You realize that I just got you to admit to being a troll, right? as I got you to admit that you use both and you even mentioned Nib. the poster I was going to use in order to prove that when other people argue powerset/protentional, you call them out and act like it doesn't count.
Thank you for showcasing your double-standard to the entire board.
*Drops mic
Originally posted by h1a8
Most here go by potentially possible.For me it goes by both to an extent based off the totality of the circumstances. We let common sense be our guide and disregard any CIS.
Also, just because a character wasn't put in a unique circumstance in a movie doesn't mean that if they were put in that situation in a forum that they wouldn't perform certain actions.
For instance, if Hela throws blades at Ares, then Ares is going to use TK, wind, etc to deflect them or send them back at her. He's not just going to sit there and do nothing.
Ares will use lightning (as he did against the God's thousands of years ago as he did against WW).
But if you like then we can argue who would win if we controlled the characters and possess all their skill and abilities.
And we can argue who would win if they fought in character (but doesn't suffer under CIS)
We debate using feats. If Ares has a feat of holding WW in the air for at least a good amount of time then your argument has merit. If he doesn't then you're basically just making stuff up.
Originally posted by FrothByte
We debate using feats. If Ares has a feat of holding WW in the air for at least a good amount of time then your argument has merit. If he doesn't then you're basically just making stuff up.
h1 is a hypocrite, he uses the "Cap doesn't fight like that" argument in his rebuttal to Nib. but when I use the same argument against Ozy, he claims it's irrelevant.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You realize that I just got you to admit to being a troll, right? as I got you to admit that you use both and you even mentioned Nib. the poster I was going to use in order to prove that when other people argue powerset/protentional, you call them out and act like it doesn't count.Thank you for showcasing your double-standard to the entire board.
*Drops mic
Wrong
Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, we argue in-character. only you try and go by power-set.If I'm wrong, feel free to post examples of "most" other people arguing powerset.
Originally posted by h1a8
Your first sentence is a false statement. The word "we" makes it false. There are at least several argued potential, including Nibedicus.To prove you wrong, I just need to show 1 person doing it (not most).
P. S. I stated that we argue in character. But that wasn't your original question.
Originally posted by FrothByte
We debate using feats. If Ares has a feat of holding WW in the air for at least a good amount of time then your argument has merit. If he doesn't then you're basically just making stuff up.
He has the capability but not the character. So he most likely will not do such a tactic. I been dropped that. Why bring it up?
Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 is a hypocrite, he uses the "Cap doesn't fight like that" argument in his rebuttal to Nib. but when I use the same argument against Ozy, he claims it's irrelevant.
You didn't use the same argument against Ozy. You are using a red herring argument (something that's irrelevant to my argument). You are basically forcing me to have a particular argument (when that's not my argument) and then you are trying to defeat it.
Basically, you are trying to defeat an argument that I don't have.
Strawman right?